Skip to comments.Was it legal to record and release Sterling's racist rant?
Posted on 05/02/2014 5:11:50 AM PDT by Biggirl
(CNN) -- Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned from the NBA for life. Sterling has confirmed it is his voice expressing racist views on audio of a private conversation that was leaked to the media. Some who have followed Sterling over the years say he had shown this side before and the leaked audio led to public outcry too loud for the NBA commissioner to ignore.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
If Sterling knew he was being recorded, it was not only legal to record him, but it was legal to release the private conversation to the media.
I think it was ‘legal’.
People need to learn how to govern themselves... their mouths, their actions, everything!!
A sense of personal responsibility MUST be taught to young people.
The problems we endure now, are much the result of people (adults too) behaving irresponsibly
One thing to keep in mind over this.
We are here in 2014 America, and a man is being divested of his property for something he said in private.
People have a right to say anything they damn well please especially in private and it is none of your business.
Was it really a racist rant?
The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.On the other hand, if Sterling consented to being recorded, then he consented, and the statute precludes charging the person who made the recording, for recording it.
From the statute:
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto ...I imagine there is a fine line between "knowing" and "consenting," but the two notions aren't precisely the same.
Right, but that guy was careless and he was asking for the trouble she handed him. He should have considered who and what he was dealing with. He is a grown man and should have been more responsible.
We have a friend who was charged with bookmaking.
One thing and another... his attorney said:
“Bring me a lot of money, and STFU”
Good advise no matter what your status in our society. I think Americans are WAY to open and public with personal information and especially with views on sensitive subjects.
Not to say that we DO NOT have freedom of speech... but you see what is happening to THAT ‘right’.
We have a WH that is more and more inimical to clearly defined ‘rights’.
It’s time to think about protecting ourselves and if we have to make statements about sensitive subjects, we should do it within the framework of organized political entities.
I know... I know... even THAT is being challenged.
However, THAT may be the ONLY way we can have a voice.... the colonists did and it will work again for US, if we are organized.
I think that’s open to subjective interpretation. Sterling might have been referring to indivdual people that he had a personal objection to. Whatever he said was less “racist” than some of Reverand Wright’s rants from the pulpit.
In California, if he didn’t know he was being recorded, then the recording is illegal. Full stop.
Who governs what’s appropriate? Free speech isn’t necessarily pretty, but its free.
You want to trade privacy and rights for security and good manners, may your shackles rest lightly upon you.
Could someone please post a transcript of the entire conversation, I ahve yet to be convinced that he said anything worthy of death.
I read an article a couple of days ago about private recordings under California law. I'll go back and see if I can find it. From memory - It takes more than just knowledge of the recording, it takes consent.
And the little tart muffin has 'said' he consented, but has shown no proof of it.....which makes not only the recording itself illegal, but I believe the publication of it as well.
Which makes HER liable for the recording and the consequences of it.
I absolutely reject the legitimacy of laws like those of California or Maryland (invoked in the Linda Tripp / Monica Lewinsky matter) that prohibit a person from recording conversations they’re participating in.
Someone described it as "ethnocentric". Nowhere in it did he attribute negative characteristics or abilities to blacks as a group.
The fact that he received a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP is sufficient proof that he’s a racist, IMO.
What he said was out of line in today’s PC world.
BUT there is a flip side here no one says anything about. The black players, use of the N word, calling white players Crackers.
It is not ok for 1 old man to say it, but it is FINE for thousands of high paid ball players to say the same things? Or worse?
What this is about is a cheating girlfriend who got caught, and wanted revenge.
It is about extortion and blackmail. But the Judges of the court of Social Justice will never let the rule of law overrule their punishments.
At this point, all we have are Stiviano's word for it that Sterling consented (and asked her to do it), and allegedly the word of the third party.
Remember that, depending on the circumstances, if you are aware something is happening, you may be deemed to have given consent without ever having said "I consent to this."
But the NBA is not a court of law. Even if the recording was illegal, it can still use it to determine if Sterling violated any of the NBA rule or bylaws.
You're quite correct. An implied consent is the same as actual consent since both require knowledge as their foundation.
In other words.....if you KNOW it's happening and you do nothing to stop it, it's your own fault.
I doubt seriously this......girlfriend....... has any 'proof' of this consent whatsoever. What gets me is that so many are so busy wagging fingers, they let the fact they think Sterling's 'racist' overshadow the illegality of it all.
You can certainly record conversations in those two states. You just can't do so secretly. I once had a tyrannical boss who was well-known for abusive language and behavior in “private” personnel meetings. The only way to get him to behave in those meetings was to inform him that the conversation would be recorded.
SOme how I missed that. It seemed to me it was more about a man ticked off that his mistress was cheating on him publicly.
Sterling was an odd character. V. Stiviano sounds even more odd.
I'll withhold judgment until the other parties present (if any) make sworn statements and I find I more about them. I withhold judgment until the 100+ hours of additional audio are heard.
At this point, it's only the word of Stiviano and (I've read) the third party that Sterling has knowledge of and gave consent to the recording. Sterling appears outrageous enough to have permitted the taping, although I don't think that's a probability.
Like in the soviet and e germany
What do Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling have in common? Nothing, but because they used their God given right of free speech to express an opinion, they have been crucified on the cross of major media——even some conservative media channels have turned their backs on these men’s right to speak their minds. Where’s the outrage from major media when members of the Black Panthers community brazenly walked the streets saying, they were going to kill all the cracker babies? Where was Obama when that was happening?
The media cry foul play when someone wants to censor them, but let all hell and its fury fall upon the heads of others they disagree with. In other words, in the America of today, only certain people have free speech, the rest of us, well, need I say anymore?
In truth, the major media is using these two men and any others, to create a race war, not end it!